Comparison Overview

Amtrak

VS

CN

Amtrak

1 Massachusetts Ave NW, None, Washington, District of Columbia, US, 20002
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 700 and 749

Moving America Where it wants to go. We are not just a railroad; we are a company that moves people. With 21,000 route miles in 46 states, the District of Columbia and three Canadian provinces, Amtrak operates more than 300 trains each day – at speeds up to 150 mph – to more than 500 destinations. We move customers where they want to go by responding to their wants and needs. And by doing so, we connect communities, economies and families that make our nation great. We employ more than 20,000 diverse, energetic professionals in a variety of career fields throughout the Unites States. Our mission is to provide safe transportation in the most efficient way possible, while ensuring that our customers get a consistent, high quality experience. Carrying out this mission, and ultimately achieving our vision, hinges on our employees. The future rides with us. Amtrak is an equal employment opportunity employer.

NAICS: 482
NAICS Definition: Rail Transportation
Employees: 13,573
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

CN

935 de La Gauchetière Street West, Montreal, H3B 2M9, CA
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 800 and 849

CN is a North American transportation and logistics leader focused on supply chain innovation and collaboration. We offer integrated shipping solutions, including rail, intermodal, trucking, freight forwarding, warehousing and distribution. We are an engaged corporate citizen, committed to the safety of our employees, customers and the public. CN is invested in building shareholder value and stronger communities, focused on environmental stewardship and developing an exceptional environment in the workplace. CN has the expertise, the network reach and the capacity to move your goods to a global marketplace in a safe, timely and cost effective manner. Welcome to CN, North America's Railroad.

NAICS: 482
NAICS Definition: Rail Transportation
Employees: 12,656
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amtrak.jpeg
Amtrak
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cn.jpeg
CN
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Amtrak
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CN
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Rail Transportation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Amtrak in 2025.

Incidents vs Rail Transportation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CN in 2025.

Incident History — Amtrak (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amtrak cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — CN (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CN cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amtrak.jpeg
Amtrak
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: External System Breach (Hacking)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cn.jpeg
CN
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

CN company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Amtrak company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Amtrak company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas CN company has not reported any.

In the current year, CN company and Amtrak company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither CN company nor Amtrak company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Amtrak company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other CN company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither CN company nor Amtrak company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Amtrak company nor CN company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Amtrak nor CN holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

CN company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Amtrak company.

Amtrak company employs more people globally than CN company, reflecting its scale as a Rail Transportation.

Neither Amtrak nor CN holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Amtrak nor CN holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Amtrak nor CN holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Amtrak nor CN holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Amtrak nor CN holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Amtrak nor CN holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H